Skip to main content
There's a Hole in My Bucket..!

Microsoft makes mistakes. It’s a statement that many of us would take for granted but to hear it suggested by Stuart Okin, Microsoft’s Chief Security Office (CSO) in the UK, was enough to grab my interest.

Following my column on Palladium, Microsoft’s forthcoming security architecture, Stuart had invited me over to the Reading campus for lunch and a chat. More used to being beaten about the head with marketing slogans from a company in denial, I found Stuart’s argument in support of Microsoft’s latest security initiative, more lucid than anything I have heard to date.

Microsoft, it appears, is prepared to move heaven and earth to in its efforts to create a trusted computing environment. The company accepts that it still has a long way to go before it can win the level confidence that it would like from its customers. Microsoft can’t promise perfect security – can anyone? - but I’m told that it can promise steadily improving security and Stuart Okin is convinced that the ‘Trusted Computing’ strategy, launched by Bill Gates earlier in the year, is already beginning to show encouraging results.

That’s very nice, I hear you say, Microsoft has learned to spell ‘Trust’ as opposed to ‘Anti-trust’ but how much of this is hot air and how much of it can really be demonstrated in overall improvements and security enhancements to the Microsoft product line?

Stuart Okin tells me that there’s much to be positive about, even though this is very much work in progress; a kind of “Every day and in every way we’re getting better and better” mantra. He asks me what I think the company needs to do to win back confidence. The problem, I tell him, revolves around honest computing as much as trusted computing. I can’t think of anyone I know who would use honest in the same breath as Microsoft. Clever, perhaps but like the canny politician it is, Microsoft is defined by its voting record; great software and good with children but short on trust, the software kind of course. How, I ask, can we really be sure that this simply isn’t a huge public relations effort to keep the lid on the secure computing issue for as long as it possibly can?

All Microsoft can do, suggests Okin, is ask the world to look closely at the evidence. How rapidly the company is making improvements and dealing with problems when they occur. Surprisingly and to prove the willingness of the company, he offers me open and unrestricted access to the Microsoft security team, allowing me draw my own conclusions from what Microsoft is doing to build security into the software, rather than speculate on what I might think it might not be doing about the problem.

So, should I accept his invitation and go looking for the evidence? If I do will I emerge with my cynicism intact or will I return wearing a Microsoft t-shirt and a fixed grin, quietly mumbling ‘Every day and every way we’re doing better and better’?


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Civilisational Data Mining

It’s a new expression I haven’t heard before. ‘Civilisational data mining.’

Let me start by putting it in some context. Every character, you or I have typed into the Google search engine or Facebook over the last decade, means something, to someone or perhaps ‘something,’ if it’s an algorithm.


In May 2014, journalists revealed that the United States National Security Agency, the NSA, was recording and archiving every single cell-phone conversation that took place in the Bahamas. In the process they managed to transform a significant proportion of a society’s day to day interactions into unstructured data; valuable information which can of course be analysed, correlated and transformed for whatever purpose the intelligence agency deems fit.

And today, I read that a GOP-hired data company in the United States has ‘leaked’ personal information, preferences and voting intentions on… wait for it… 198 million US citizens.

Within another decade or so, the cost of sequencing the human genome …

The Nature of Nurture?

Recently, I found myself in a fascinating four-way Twitter exchange, with Professor Adam Rutherford and two other science-minded friends The subject, frequently regarded as a delicate one, genetics and whether there could exist an unknown but contributory genetic factor(s) or influences in determining what we broadly understand or misunderstand as human intelligence.

I won’t discuss this subject in any great detail here, being completely unqualified to do so, but I’ll point you at the document we were discussing, and Rutherford’s excellent new book, ‘A Brief History of Everyone.”

What had sparked my own interest was the story of my own grandfather, Edmond Greville; unless you are an expert on the history of French cinema, you are unlikely to have ever hear of him but he still enjoys an almost cult-like following for his work, half a century after his death.

I've been enjoying the series "Genius" on National Geographic about the life of Albert Einstein. The four of us ha…
The Mandate of Heaven

eGov Monitor Version

“Parliament”, said my distinguished friend “has always leaked like a sieve”.

I’m researching the thorny issue of ‘Confidence in Public Sector Computing’ and we were discussing the dangers presented by the Internet. In his opinion, information security is an oxymoron, which has no place being discussed in a Parliament built upon the uninterrupted flow of information of every kind, from the politically sensitive to the most salacious and mundane.

With the threat of war hanging over us, I asked if MPs should be more aware of the risks that surround this new communications medium? More importantly, shouldn’t the same policies and precautions that any business might use to protect itself and its staff, be available to MPs?

What concerns me is that my well-respected friend mostly considers security in terms of guns, gates and guards. He now uses the Internet almost as much as he uses the telephone and the Fax machine and yet the growing collective t…